The English Catechism: Is 2263 on Killing mistaken?

[Ender]

I agree with you in general, but in moral theology, when we define murder as “killing the innocent,” we mean “externally innocent,” because we have no way of judging a person’s interior disposition.

Murder is a deliberate, unjustified killing. The personal guilt or innocence of the victim is immaterial. If a man executes another man’s wife he is clearly guilty of murder. If the husband in turn finds and kills the murderer he, too, is guilty of murder. We shouldn’t get too hung up on the words when the concept is clear enough.

The Magisterium of St. John Paul II has made it clear that the only legitimate reason to use the death penalty is imminent danger to society; that is, when incarceration is insufficient.

JPII made clear his personal opposition to the use of capital punishment in modern societies; that does not mean its use has now become illegitimate except where it is necessary for protection. Protection is not now and has never been the primary objective of punishment, and of itself does not determine the severity of the punishment. The primary justification for any punishment is retribution - retributive justice. This is what legitimates the use of capital punishment.

In other words, the death penalty is a kind of self-defence applied to the society as a whole.

The church has never defined capital punishment in terms of self-defense, nor is it appropriate to do so. Killing is allowed in self-defense with one major caveat: that the death of the aggressor not be intended. Given that the death of the criminal is the whole purpose of the death penalty, the act fails to meet the criteria for legitimate self-defense. Capital punishment cannot be justified as an act of self-defense.

Ender

 

[Rau]

No, you were right the first time. It is an entreaty, a request, a judgment that it should not be used, not because it is immoral but because its use in current circumstances is believed to be unwise.
*As to the Pope’s assertion that the death penalty should today be rare …this is to be understood as an exercise of the Pope’s prudential judgment. “Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

It is more than request. The statement is adamant. And it makes sense. It is warning you that it may be unjust, it may be immoral - worse than merely unwise - that the State may be in error in (most) instances of the application of capital punishment.

Just as I may kill in the service of self defence, my right to kill does not arise in every instance where I need to defend myself, only where necessary. If I hold to a view that I shall put a bullet through the head of every trespasser, I go to far, I have not formulated my action in good faith, according to the proper principles applicable to self-defence. The same obligation is applicable to capital punishment. [Note: I am not suggesting that capital punishment is a form of self-defence. Having said that, retributive justice, for its own sake, is a disturbing idea.]

I note also that a “commensurate” punishment does not mean a punishment that repeats the wrong act, this time directed at the guilty party. Thus, the death penalty shoud not be seen as the naturally commensurate punishment for murder. What punishments are commensurate with what crimes seems to be inherently difficult to identify.

 

[styrgwillidar]

“2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing.”

This statement appears to have an inconsistency.

I understand that:

• intentional killing is always wrong.
• self-defence is not intentional killing (self preservation is whats primarily intended).

I do not understand the phrase:
“murder of the innocent” is intentional killing.

I can understand “killing of the innocent” is intentional killing (because this could not be self defence which is an exception as it would be indirect killing).

And is not “murder of the guilty” also intentional killing?

Also, is not murder already self-defined as a killing of the innocent anyway?

Is a better translation of the Latin CCC here actually “killing of the innocent?”
Elsewhere in this section occisio is translated as “slay” (killing or murder?)

It seems to be addressing the concept of targeting non-combatants during war. Note it refers to ‘murder of the innocent’ not actions directed at the person/persons who are a threat. Or collateral damage, inadvertent and unintentional killing. Acts directed towards the innocent can not be justified stating they are part of legitimate self defense. You couldn’t starve a population in an effort to destroy some subset of the population that is a threat.

 

[Ender]

It is more than request. The statement is adamant. And it makes sense.

It is a judgment about the advisability of applying capital punishment; it is not a change to a doctrine the church has taught for 2000 years.

Note: I am not suggesting that capital punishment is a form of self-defence. Having said that, retributive justice, for its own sake, is a disturbing idea.

Retributive justice is a disturbing concept for a lot of people. Unfortunately 2267 has only reinforced the misconception of what it is. In 2266 we are told *The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. *
The question of course is: what does that mean? The church tells us that punishment has four legitimate objectives: retribution, protection, rehabilitation, and deterrence. Three of the four are future oriented; they are directed at influencing what we want to prevent or want to cause to occur in the future. None of them addresses the past, none of them can redress the disorder caused by the offense. The only one which is a direct reaction to “the offense” is retribution. This is “the primary scope” of all punishment and you have to ask how we got to a situation where justice itself has become suspect.

I note also that a “commensurate” punishment does not mean a punishment that repeats the wrong act, this time directed at the guilty party. Thus, the death penalty should not be seen as the naturally commensurate punishment for murder.

We know the death penalty is just at least for the crime of murder because the church has acknowledged a state’s right to apply it. If it is just it is because it is commensurate in severity with the severity of the crime. We also know this because this is what God told us, a fact that seems increasingly irrelevant.

What punishments are commensurate with what crimes seems to be inherently difficult to identify.

This may be true of many crimes, but we can be pretty sure we know what punishment is commensurate with the crime of murder.Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed (God)
Ender

 

[Rau]

It is a judgment about the advisability of applying capital punishment; it is not a change to a doctrine the church has taught for 2000 years.
Retributive justice is a disturbing concept for a lot of people. Unfortunately 2267 has only reinforced the misconception of what it is. In 2266 we are told *The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. *
The question of course is: what does that mean? The church tells us that punishment has four legitimate objectives: retribution, protection, rehabilitation, and deterrence. Three of the four are future oriented; they are directed at influencing what we want to prevent or want to cause to occur in the future. None of them addresses the past, none of them can redress the disorder caused by the offense. The only one which is a direct reaction to “the offense” is retribution. This is “the primary scope” of all punishment and you have to ask how we got to a situation where justice itself has become suspect.
We know the death penalty is just at least for the crime of murder because the church has acknowledged a state’s right to apply it. If it is just it is because it is commensurate in severity with the severity of the crime. We also know this because this is what God told us, a fact that seems increasingly irrelevant.
This may be true of many crimes, but we can be pretty sure we know what punishment is commensurate with the crime of murder.Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed (God)
Ender

And also…“vengeance is mine” (God).

Do you argue that executing all persons who murder would be justified on retribution grounds?

That would certainly put the goal of rehabilitation on the back-burner!

 

[Ender]

And also…“vengeance is mine” (God).

*I answer that the vengeance which public officers inflict is rightly called the vengeance of God, for they are the ministers of God, serving Him in this very matter. Hence St. Paul, after he had said, “Revenge is Mine, I will repay,” adds, “But if thou do that which is evil, fear; for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister; an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.” *(St.Bellarmine)

Do you argue that executing all persons who murder would be justified on retribution grounds?

No, absolutely not, but accepting that there are exceptions to the rule does not mean the rule is rejected.

That would certainly put the goal of rehabilitation on the back-burner!

*“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. Indeed the danger threatening the community from their life is greater and more certain than the good expected by their conversion. Besides, in the hour of death, they have every facility for turning to God by repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart will not go back upon its wickedness, a fairly probable reckoning may be made that they never would have returned to a better mind.” *(Aquinas) Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Given that the church has a “just war doctrine” what is clear is that humans may intentionally kill in certain circumstances, the church has been quite specific on what those circumstances are, and two of them include killing intentionally.

The CCC appears adamant that the ONLY justification for killing is Self-Defence:

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful.
2263 The legitimate defense of … societies * is not an exception to the prohibition against…intentional killing. “The act of self-defense…the killing of the aggressor…is not [intended].

Therefore War and Capital Punishment would appear justified only on the principles that also permit Self Defence.

I therefore must point blank have to disagree with your opinion "humans may intentionally kill in certain circumstances" as it contradicts the CCC.
Perhaps you really mean the word “voluntarily” (a fine but necessary distinction to make your statement true and accurate).

And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate.

Noone really accepts this medieval divine-right-of-kings approach as having significant credibility these days. If you can find it in a recent Encyclical or the CCC I would be willing to revise my opinion

The church has never used self-defense as justification for capital punishment.

Well the CCC seems to contradicts you on this also:
*2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude… recourse to the death penalty **when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. ****

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The Latin of the Catechism says the following:
The word that is translated as “intentional” in Latin is voluntarium (“voluntary”). I think it renders the idea more or less correctly, although I personally would have used “voluntary.”

Well noticed…if you are correct then I would say translating it as “intentional” is a huge mistake…esp because “intended” is immediately used in the next sentence as per the PODE where the death is not directly intentional.

Appalling translation if you are right.

However does the sentence make any more sense using “voluntary”?
Namely: “murder of the innocent …constitutes voluntary killing.”

It suggests “murder of the guilty” wouldn’t constitute voluntary killing!
Does this conclusion make sense to you?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It seems to be addressing the concept of targeting non-combatants during war. Note it refers to ‘murder of the innocent’ not actions directed at the person/persons who are a threat. Or collateral damage, inadvertent and unintentional killing. Acts directed towards the innocent can not be justified stating they are part of legitimate self defense. You couldn’t starve a population in an effort to destroy some subset of the population that is a threat.

I like the direction you’re taking but what does “innocent” really mean in this context.

The US seems to justify Nagasaki either by saying
(a) civilians were not “innocent” (they are potential? combatants).
(b) they were innocent but this collateral damage was not directly intended.

Self defence seems to be the only moral act that one can commit with any possibility of not directly intending the death of the victim.

To say someone is innocent seems to mean one cannot invoke “self-defence” and the PODE in killing them perhaps?

The only other “justification” then for killing the innocent then is inadvertance (collateral damage). Most of us would find it difficult to believe that Nagasaki could be bombed without killing non-combatants.

Conclusion:
Anyways, what would “murder of the guilty” then mean?
Guilty suggests they are a threat and self defence is legitimate.

So if “murder of the guilty” is OK then “murder” cannot involve “directly intended”.
But if even “murder of the guilty” is not OK…then “murder” must involve direct intention.

I do not know which is correct.

 

[Rau]

Reiterating pleas made by his predecessors John Paul II and Benedict XVI for an end to the death penalty, Pope Francis has continued to develop the Church’s opposition to capital punishment, and has also questioned the appropriateness of “life sentences”.

*It is impossible to imagine that States today fail to employ a means other than capital punishment to protect the lives of other people from the unjust aggressor.

St John Paul II condemned the death penalty (cf. Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, n. 56), as does the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 2267) as well.

It can be established, however, that States take life not only through the death penalty and through war, but also when, in order to justify their crimes, public officials take refuge in the shadow of State prerogatives. So-called extra-judicial or extra-legal executions are homicides deliberately committed by certain States and by their agents, often passed off as clashes with criminals or presented as the unintended consequences of the reasonable, necessary and proportionate use of force in applying the law. In this way, although among the 60 Countries that sanction the death penalty, 35 have not applied it in the last 10 years, the death penalty is applied illegally and in varying degrees throughout the planet.

The same extra-judicial executions are performed in a systematic way not only by States in the international community, but also by entities not recognized as such, and they are genuine crimes.

There are many well known arguments against the death penalty. The Church has duly highlighted several, such as the possibility of judicial error and the use made by totalitarian and dictatorial regimes who use it as a means of suppressing political dissidence or of persecuting religious and cultural minorities, all victims who, in their respective legislation are termed “delinquents”.

All Christians and men of good will are thus called today to fight not only for the abolition of the death penalty, whether legal or illegal, and in all its forms, but also in order to improve prison conditions, with respect for the human dignity of the people deprived of their freedom. And I link this to life imprisonment. A short time ago the life sentence was taken out of the Vatican’s Criminal Code. A life sentence is just a death penalty in disguise.*Source: w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/october/documents/papa-francesco_20141023_associazione-internazionale-diritto-penale.html

And here is a short commentary on the recent Church exhortations in respect of the death penalty.
firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/11/the-pope-and-the-problem-of-punishment

It touches on the focus, in recent times, of the death penalty as a means to protect society yet largely ignoring its previously stressed purpose as a means of expiation (as per Pius XII). There is clearly a need to reconcile the previously taught positions with the current.

Innocent I was the first Pope to speak in favour of the death penalty. Innocent III made clear that proper motivation is required:

*The secular power can without mortal sin carry out a sentence of death, provided it proceeds in imposing the penalty not from hatred but with judgment, not carelessly but with due solicitude.*I suspect recent Popes would say that use of the death penalty often falls foul of these conditions.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Murder is a deliberate, unjustified killing.
Ender

Can you ref Church docs that define murder this way?

It is possible that murder is any deliberate (ie directly intended) killing isn’t it?

Of course just “murder is an unjustified killing” is mere tautology rather than a helpful definition.

 

[Rau]

Can you ref Church docs that define murder this way?

It is possible that murder is any deliberate (ie directly intended) killing isn’t it?

Of course just “murder is an unjustified killing” is mere tautology rather than a helpful definition.

JP II identified the “direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being” as an intrinsic evil, never permissible in any circumstance. Evangelium Vitae (57). This is murder (incorporating abortion, euthanasia, etc.)

Direct and voluntary is akin to “deliberate” but I think a little more precise. The word “innocent” distinguishes this definition from what you suggest above.

I found Ender’s definition that you quoted just a little circular. (Kind of…“Murder is those killings absent the features that make it not Murder”)

 

[Ender]

The CCC appears adamant that the ONLY justification for killing is Self-Defence:

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful.
2263 The legitimate defense of … societies * is not an exception to the prohibition against…intentional killing. “The act of self-defense…the killing of the aggressor…is not [intended].*
You need to be a bit more precise here. The complete sentence from 2263 is this:The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against* the murder of the innocent*** that constitutes intentional killing.
So, 2268 forbids intentional killing, and 2263 defines intentional killing as “the murder of the innocent.” Neither of those relate to the execution of the guilty, a distinction the church has made very clear.*…as long as a man is without guilt, his life is untouchable…God is the sole lord of the life of a man not guilty of a crime punishable by the death penalty. *(Pius XII)

I therefore must point blank have to disagree with your opinion "humans may intentionally kill in certain circumstances"

 

[Ender]

Self defence seems to be the only moral act that one can commit with any possibility of not directly intending the death of the victim.

This is why capital punishment cannot be considered self defense inasmuch as it is precisely about “directly intending the death of the victim.”

Ender

 

[Ender]

There is clearly a need to reconcile the previously taught positions with the current.

Whatever else we may agree or disagree on, this statement is absolutely true.*Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. Although the constant teaching of the Church has been that the state has a right to impose the death penalty, the Catechism declares that the actual circumstances in which capital punishment is legitimate are “practically nonexistent.” Moreover, the Catechism weaves doctrine so tightly together with prudential and factual judgments that it is not at all clear how much of its discourse on capital punishment actually is being put forward as binding Catholic teaching. *(R Michael Dunnigan, J.D., J.C.L.)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Can you ref Church docs that define murder this way?

You would think that something so apparently obvious as murder would be easy to define, but that appears not to be the case. I think that legally murder is defined as an unlawful killing, which begs the question of whether a law that legalizes the killing of undesirables makes the act any less a murder.

The church says “*The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing” *and "the murder of the innocent…constitutes intentional killing." Again, this is not all that helpful.

It is possible that murder is any deliberate (ie directly intended) killing isn’t it?

I think that murder is a killing that is intended and unjustified. Actually the legal definition works if we assume that “unlawful” refers to God’s laws and not simply those of the state.

Of course just “murder is an unjustified killing” is mere tautology rather than a helpful definition.

It isn’t a tautology, although without an explanation of what acts are justified it is certainly vague and ambiguous. Basically killing is justified when God allows it, which according to the church permits it in three situations:*Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:

1. In self-defense…
2. In a just war…
3. By the lawful execution of a criminal… *(Baltimore Catechism)
   Ender

 

[styrgwillidar]

I like the direction you’re taking but what does “innocent” really mean in this context.

The US seems to justify Nagasaki either by saying
(a) civilians were not “innocent” (they are potential? combatants).
(b) they were innocent but this collateral damage was not directly intended.

Self defence seems to be the only moral act that one can commit with any possibility of not directly intending the death of the victim.

To say someone is innocent seems to mean one cannot invoke “self-defence” and the PODE in killing them perhaps?

The only other “justification” then for killing the innocent then is inadvertance (collateral damage). Most of us would find it difficult to believe that Nagasaki could be bombed without killing non-combatants.

Conclusion:
Anyways, what would “murder of the guilty” then mean?
Guilty suggests they are a threat and self defence is legitimate.

So if “murder of the guilty” is OK then “murder” cannot involve “directly intended”.
But if even “murder of the guilty” is not OK…then “murder” must involve direct intention.

I do not know which is correct.

Well, self defense is intended to stop the threat, not necessarily kill the attacker. In personal defense, one is not prohibited from dealing a lethal blow, or a blow likely to cause death-- because the intent wasn’t to kill, it was to stop the threat (again, this applies only to someone who is a threat, not someone who is ‘innocent’).

At Nagasaki there were legitimate military targets in terms of factories and support facilities which were the targets. Millions of leaflets were dropped prior to the attacks warning the population to leave- so, comes down to your opinion of whether enough was done to avoid killing the innocents. You could also drag into this the concept of total war-- are workers making the weapons, ammunition, involved in supplying the armed forces themselves legitimate targets? Perhaps, but certainly not the children nor the folks directly involved in the war effort (elderly etc.). More relevant actually to the European theater and conventional/firebombing raids with several of them having death tolls greater than either Hiroshima/Nagasaki depending on the sources. (Lot of adjustment to figures decades after the war was over). We’ll never know the true counts due to the numbers simply vaporized in the infernos that tore through those cities. But, part of the justification at the time was the population supporting the war effort- i.e. the labor pool, were essential elements in waging war and therefore legitimate targets.

I think that’s the issue that this portion of the catechism is addressing. Even if you’re invoking self-defense you can not justify intentionally targeting innocent people. You can’t wipeout schools full of children (…or hospitals…) to break the will of the combatants to fight. As you point out as opposed to collateral damage where the innocent are not targeted but fall victim.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

JP II identified the “direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being” as an intrinsic evil, never permissible in any circumstance. Evangelium Vitae (57). This is murder (incorporating abortion, euthanasia, etc.)

Direct and voluntary is akin to “deliberate” but I think a little more precise. The word “innocent” distinguishes this definition from what you suggest above.

I found Ender’s definition that you quoted just a little circular. (Kind of…“Murder is those killings absent the features that make it not Murder”)

Hmmmn, interesting but not really an explicit a definition of murder.

If direct and voluntary killing is always wrong (as per CCC) …why do we have to keep saying murder of the innocent? Why not just “murder of any human being is an intrinsic evil”

EVs phrase above does seem a bit of a tautology.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

[/INDENT]2263 defines intentional killing as "the murder of the innocent
Ender

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor… the one is intended, the other is not.”
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude…recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor…
2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. the murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin…

You stated “what is clear is that humans may intentionally kill in certain circumstances”.

Yet any sane person reading CCC 2263,2267,2268 together cannot avoid the conclusion that:
(1) the death penalty in the CCC is justified on exactly the same basis as personal self-defence
(2) direct intentional killing can never be justified, not even in personal self-defence
(3) murder is aligned with “direct and intentional killing”

Your interpretation of 2263 above appears procrustean and narrow and necessitated only by an unjustified “logic” that your view on CP is some sort of “first principle” that cannot be wrong - so other CCC statements must be. That’s appears to be pretty subjective “logic” not worthy of the name.

For in fact 2263 does not define “intentional killing” as “murder of the innocent”. It is not a statement of equivalence but appears partial (ie transitive) ie “belonging to”.

Rather it says that murder of the innocent constitutes “intentional killing.”
That is, it is an example of intentional killing and so there may be other examples that also constitute “intentional killing”. And there are. 2268 again mentions the murderer (one who kills directly and intentionally) with no mention of “the innocent” here.

Further evidence that your reading of 2263 is forced is seen by the following mention of the principle of double effect. Showing that not even self defence allows for direct and intentional killing.

I cannot help you with “descant” Catholic traditions that appear to justify CP on bases other than self-defence. They are no longer the mainstream justification for CP as they have no clear articulation in the CCC. The “melody” wrt justification of CP is clearly now in favour of self-defence in the CCC…which means CP cannot be interpretted to allow direct and intentional killing.

Your view may have been mainstream in the time of Aquinas but in more recent centuries the tide has receded and its now a minority view as the Deposit of Faith gets validly clarified over time by the Magisterium.

You are of course not a heretic for holding your view that direct and intentional killing can be justified and CP is an example.

But the gates are clearly closing on you.
CP may really only be justified on the basis of legitimate self-defence of the state…a state of affairs that has really always been the case. In times past it seems this reality was masked by the practical reality that large numbers of permanent agressors could not be nullifed in any other realistic way other than death.

Just as the CCC states in a number of places:

*2266 …Moreover, punishment [of which the death penalty is possible], in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude…recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. “If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means…"*

Ender I am not going to continue debating this with you because your “logic” that your medieval view is the only correct view (and that teaching in this area cannot develop) is making you invincably? blind to the doctrinal developments clearly emergent in the CCC and more recent Papal teaching.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is why capital punishment cannot be considered self defense inasmuch as it is precisely about “directly intending the death of the victim.”

Ender

I challenge you to find a solid Magisterial statement in the last 50 years that says this?
Given the CCC I don’t see how that is possible, but I may be wrong.